Wikipedia:Village pump/December 2003 archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] delete, redirect

summarised

[edit] About red links. Really!

I have rescued the following bit from an earlier discussion, since it was not really addressed at all:

Similarly, a lot of VfD pages seem to have started out as ill-considered red links which got turned into stubs - so we really should not red-link anything that would not make a suitable article in its own right and we should remove any such red links when detected. I generally do this, but it does not seem to be common practice and I have not seen any guidelines. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this really merits serious consideration. The closest thing we have to a list of all red links on wikipedia is the list of non-existent articles with the most red links pointing to them. And that is a static list I gather. Is it totally unfeasible to just compile a list of existent redlinks ordered alphabetically, without counting how many of each there are, with a ready action link to a Whatlinkshere thingummy which would show all the pages where that particular bogus subject has been linked. Is this technically unfeasible, or is there a fear of abuse of such a facility?

Actually, now that I think about it... One would assume that a bogus article subject would not get too many links to it, unless the linker was someone doing it willfully. And someone like that wouldn't be deterred by the absence of links anyway... Maybe the answer would be to have a list of only those article subjects which have one or two red links pointing toward them. Would that be feasible? As Anjouli intimated, such accidental or semiaccidental creations of articles which do not deserve it, might be just that easy to deter.

If someone were too quick to remove red links, I'm sure it wouldn't be too ardous to replace them. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 20:03, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the red links that only occur 1 or 2 times in Wikipedia. Editors are placing them there for a reason: They would be articles that should exist. Why override thousands of these individual editors' judgments in an automated way? Are red links so bad that you have to throw up your hands and shield your eyes at the sight? (BTW, the "most wanted articles" pages are great.) Tempshill 00:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please reread the above. Nowhere does it say that all red links which only occur one or two times should be deleted. But rather that a list of such links were available, so people could see which those links are, and which of those are invalid and which not.

Nothing about it would be automated save the generation of the list itself. A list which the majority of would be valid links of course. Each subject has had only one link to begin with (barring some truly spectacular examples of GMTA).

It is true that the creator of a link may have knowledge about what makes the link valid, which some other folks might not have.

Does someone really know what percentage of deleted articles were originally linked from somewhere, and where and how many places were they linked from? If a significant number were creations resulting from red links which were bogus to begin with, maybe there would be some justification to seek some way of hunting down those bogus red links. (I fully admit that I may have created bogus red links myself, some days I really have played by the rule. "If in doubt, feel free to link." Which I now realize was not a good idea, but what can you do.)

No, I mean really, what can you do? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 01:39, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to go over recent items from Wikipedia:Deletion log and try the "What links here" button on them. --Brion 02:40, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. Thanks. (now, why didn't I think of that?) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:28, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I think there may be a bit of "concept-drift" here. When I started this, I did not for a moment mean to suggest we delete valid red links, and certainly not on a basis of link-counts. But we should delete obviously stupid links like this one. (I just know that's going to end up as an article on VfD) The second point is where a newbie clicks a red-link, creates an article there, then gets blasted on VfD because the subject is trivial, inappropriate, or duplicates an existing article. It would save everybody a lot of heart-ache if such links were proactively fixed - or even better, done properly the first time. I take the point that the original author may know something that a potential link-modifier does not, but the link could be researched first - as (I hope) we all do now before placing an article on VfD. I think anybody who believes in fixing bad red links should simply do so. If anybody objects to a "bad call", they can always revert, or we can discuss the matter.Anjouli 11:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well maybe. I think the larger point I was trying to make, is that there is at present a very limited toolbox of utilities that are directed at red links, and their pruning, fixing etc. As the number of red links grows, this may well be a crucial nexus for preventative action which is too easily missed. Removing a bogus red link is a very easy thing to do as an act, but it can forestall the need for much gnashing of teeth and bad feeling. It would be good if such targets for easily done very significant positive action were also easy to locate. Well that is just me musing aloud again. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:34, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Social Security #s on pages

The recent activity (I believe it borders on vandalism) by a particular user raises an interesting question: Does a social security number constitute public information that should be viewable on Wikipedia? I disagree myself, but I figured I should raise the question for discussion.

--Metasquares 02:43, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't rule out a situation where it might possibly be appropriate for some reason. But to put someone's SSN in the first paragraph of an entry about that person? No, there is no reason at all for that, and it does constitute vandalism. A SSN is what passes for private information in the US these days, and the addition of a SSN adds no relevant or necessary information to an understanding of that person within the context of an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Moncrief, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Social security numbers should not be added to the pages because social security numbers are not supposed to be public knowledge. It is part of the information required to steal someone's identity and for example get a credit card as that individual. I think that constantly adding the information to the start of the biographies after being repeatedly asked not to is definitely bordering on vandalism. Maximus Rex 02:50, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some SSNs are public knowledge. If it were possible to steal Bill Gate's identity, then it would have already been done by now. These numbers were published online by the United States government since 1995. I was never asked not to, and certainly not by anyone who was in charge of this site. Anthony DiPierro 02:54, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that knowing his SSN deepens anyone's understanding of Bill Gates (or anyone else) in any way, but I object most strongly to the information being put in the first paragraph of the entry. Even if you think the information is approriate for inclusion somewhere in the article (which I personally don't), there is no possible reason why it should be in the lead paragraph. His SSN and the context (unchecked, but I'll assume it's accurate) in which it became public ARE in fact in the Bill Gates entry, but very near to the bottom - which reflects the importance of the information to the entry. A compromise could be to leave it in that position. I don't agree, but it's better than the inexcusable entry of the info into the first paragraph. Moncrief

[1], [2] and some persuassion from Anthère on IRC has led Anthony to agree not to put this information up. Angela. 03:12, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I agree with the conclusion that SSNs do not generally belong in an article (exceptions are possible) it is worth noting that the act referenced appears not to have become law. Jamesday 05:51, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no reason that an SSN should exist in a wikipedia article. They are not noteworthy or relevant to anything. The only reason they would be posted is in an attempt to subject a target (not necessarily the subject of the article) to identity theft. I think it should be Wikipedia policy to disallow the posting of SSN's, national ID numbers, or other equivalents in other countries. Tempshill 22:03, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Legal and privacy issues aside, inclusion of SSNs should surely pass the same common-sense test that including anything in an article should - is it relevant? Alexander the Great's hatsize is irrelevant, but O.J.Simpson's glove size is relevant. The dimensions' of John Holmes manhood are relevant, those of Sherlock Holmes are not. If one were writing an article about how SSNs are assigned then some significant cases (e.g. the first recipient) would be relevant - but those of J.Random Person would not be. If one were writing at article about numerology (attention: straw man) then the "fact" that Lee Harvey Oswald's SSN is 512 666 2666 (which it almost certainly isn't) would be relevant, but if the general article on Oswald said it was 512 943 4693 then that is (surely) utterly irrelevant. So I anything can, in theory, be included if relevant - but (as should be rather obvious) I had a very hard job of figuring out even a clutching-at-strawman for SSNs. -- Finlay McWalter 22:31, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A social security number is nine digits long (###-##-####) and therefore we can say that Lee Harvey Oswald' SSN certainly isn't (not just almost certainly isn't) 512 666 2666. <ducking> Dpbsmith 01:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) (Sorry) (Very sorry) (Terribly sorry)
Social Security numbers are public information. I remember that the original social security card said "not to be used for identification." Also, social security numbers are publicly discolosed in such things as University grade reports. Greenmountainboy 01:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No they are not. If your university is doing this they are violating FERPA. Maximus Rex 01:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I'm baffled by this whole discussion. Why would anybody even consider adding social security numbers to an article? Why is this relevant biographical information? --Delirium 04:41, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know. Best to ask the person who kept adding the SSN to the first paragraph of the Bill Gates article. Moncrief

[edit] Policy on Signed Pages

Summarised

Articles at Wikipedia are not signed. Sometimes people do this accidentally through habit of signing talk pages, or because they are new and don't know they are not supposed to. In such cases, the signature should be deleted.

Pakaran pointed out that Internet-Encyclopedia does have the option for respected users to sign articles. This could lead to confusion from people who have previously edited there. Optim suggested that the no-sign policy be added to the edit page to avoid people thinking they shuld sign articles here.

[edit] "Recently," "at this writing," etc.

I see a problem; I don't have a suggested solution. The article on Siegfried & Roy opens (italics mine):

Siegfried & Roy are longtime Las Vegas headliners whose illusion and magic act recently closed due to a tragic incident in which Roy was mauled by one of the act's performing white tigers.

I personally have written passages in which it seemed natural to say at this writing thus-and-such. It seems to me that when a term such as "recently" or "at this writing" is used, there should be some easy way for the reader to tell just when the passage was written.

  • The page history isn't very suitable for that purpose, because, given a particular passage, it doesn't tell when that passage was changed.
  • I've tried putting the year in—e.g. "at this writing (2003) a transition to digital photography is well under way, but film is still the predominant medium for ordinary family snapshots"—but it looks stupid.
  • It does not seem reasonable to insist that the writer of something like the Siegfried and Roy article stop in their tracks and not proceed until they can determine the exact date when the show closed; that's a nice-to-have, not a must-have.
  • I don't think it's safe to assume that any given article will be reviewed and updated on any regular schedule and that any usage of "recently" or "at this writing" will automatically get changed when it becomes stale.

Any thoughts about this?

This leads me naturally to my next query... footnotes... (because they are one conceivable way of handling the problem...) Dpbsmith 16:07, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd say just give the best explicit date you can manage. "Siegfried & Roy are longtime Las Vegas headliners whose illusion and magic act closed in November 2003 [or whenever it was] due to a tragic incident in which Roy was mauled by one of the act's performing white tigers." Precision isn't necessary if you can't manage it - "closed in late 2003" will do for now if the writer doesn't know more precisely. If you're talking about something which is ongoing or likely to be ongoing, you can say something like "as of 2003, a transition to digital photography is well under way...". --Camembert
In this context, can I point out the existence of the [[as of xxxx]] system. The idea is that if you know that the information will need to be updated later, you put an As of link in - "[[As of 2003]], Michael Palin's latest travel documentary is Sahara", for instance - and then some future person with time on their hands can go to Special:Whatlinkshere/As of 2003 and get an easy list of articles with information that might be out of date. Wikipedia:As of has more information. —Paul A 06:18, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That's worth knowing. Thanks; glad I asked! Dpbsmith 21:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


[edit] List of links

The (now alphabetical) list of pages that link to World War I starts with 1066 and All That (i e numbers) and ends with European influence in Afghanistan. What about letters F to Z? --KF 21:56, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I get the same. Looks like a bug to me. I guess we should raise it as such. Andrewa 12:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just noticed that 1945 is even worse -- links only down to the letter D. I have no idea how to report a bug. I read Wikipedia:Bug reports carefully but just don't understand it: I wouldn't know what to do. --KF 22:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Verse formatting

The first time I had to enter some verse in which successive lines were indented by different amounts, I tried preceding them with colon and colon-colon, e.g.:

:When I was one-and-twenty
::I heard a wise man say,
:"Give crowns and pounds and guineas
::But not your heart away;

which results in:

When I was one-and-twenty
I heard a wise man say,
"Give crowns and pounds and guineas
But not your heart away;

Unfortunately, when you do this, the Wiki-html-generator-thing-plus-browser-whatever inserts extra spacing between the singly and doubly-indented material, which I think looks grotesquely wrong (take a look at Limerick_(poetry), for example—does anything think this is the right way to present a limerick?)

After some experimentation, I settled on using a variable number of nbsp's at the start of each line, followed by a br at the end, e.g.:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Give pearls away and rubies<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But keep your fancy free."<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No use to talk to me.<br>

which yields

Give pearls away and rubies
But keep your fancy free."
But I was one-and-twenty,
No use to talk to me.

As displayed in the browser, I think this is perfectly acceptable.

Well, the last time I did THAT, someone edited it to use the space-at-the-start-of-a-line method, e.g.

    When I was one-and-twenty
         I heard him say again,
    "The heart out of the bosom
         Was never given in vain;

I detest the monospaced typeface you get when you do that, but otherwise I thought it was OK and I assumed that if someone had changed it that must be the Wikipedia Way, so that's what I did the next time I needed to enter a piece of verse—

—and when I did, someone changed it to alternating colons and double-colons!

What is the preferred Wikipedia markup for verse with variable line indentation? Is there a guide to this anywhere? Dpbsmith 13:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Well, both Limerick (poetry) and your colon-based example above look perfectly fine for me, both in IE and mozilla. But as to the nbsp way - I think someone probably mistook your effort for those of a newbie - perhaps if you leave an html comment above the limerick in question, saying you're doing this on purpose (and having the above stuff on the corresponding talk page) then I think it'll be left unmolested. -- Finlay McWalter 14:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] WTF? Varying rendering of colon-indented text in different browsers

In an example above, and in Limerick_(poetry), in which successive lines are indented different amounts by using different numbers of colons, the appearance in Apple's Safari and IE 5.2 for Mac OS X is similar. The browser displays a blank line separating a source line beginning with a single colon and a source line beginning with two lines. Thus, the appearance of

:From the hag and hungry goblin
:That into rags would rend thee
::And the spirit that stands
::by the naked man,
:In the book of the moons defend yee.

in these two browsers is

image:browserrendering.png

On the other hand, on my wife's PC running IE 6.0.2008 under Windows 98, the interpolated blank lines are not seen.

On whatever browser you're using now, it renders as:

From the hag and hungry goblin
That into rags would rend thee
And the spirit that stands
by the naked man,
In the book of the moons defend yee.

Whose bug is this? Is there something wrong with the HTML that the wiki is generating? It certainly is unpleasant that the same browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer,' gives different results on different platforms. Right or wrong, you'd think MS would at least be consistent with themselves. Dpbsmith 16:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MSIE is hardly ever consistent with itself :-) Also, MSIE for the Mac is, to the best of my knowledge, developed separately from MSIE for Windows. The case you mention is probably just a situation in which the default spacing for definition lists (which is what is generated by leading colons) is different for various browsers. Not a bug, really; just a quirk. -- Wapcaplet 16:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The difference is almost certainly the handling of stylesheets between the various browsers - CSS handling between browsers is rather inconsistent (and will remain so for the next few years). In the meantime I suggest you a) file a bug against wikipedia's stylesheet (it is possible, with much effort, to make truly portable stylesheets) and b) stick with the nbsps in the interim. -- Finlay McWalter 16:47, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way for HTML to indent text, really. We cheat with a DL and different browsers have different ideas on how to display this -- Tarquin 17:23, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) (This should be FAQed)

There is no bug here. The HTML standard does not really specify how something should be renedered, so it's up to the browser. Some choose to put a blank line, some don't. They're both following the standard though. CGS 19:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC).

Indeed, but the wikipedia is suboptimal on at least one major platform. This is something in our power to fix - some more specific handling of CSS margins in the stylesheet (for dl tags) should do the trick. -- Finlay McWalter 19:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
On the contrary, I find that the rendering in IE/Mac and Safari is much superior for our primary use of the colon-indentation, which is threaded commentary.
Anyway, I tried playing with stylesheets a bit out of curiosity; the IE/Win and Mozilla behavior can be replicated in IE/Mac by setting the margin-top and margin-bottom on dl and dd elements to 0, but oddly this doesn't affect Safari (tested 1.1.1 v100.1). --Brion 03:17, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've submitted a description of this issue to SourceForge as bug 864015, MediaWiki project: "Different colon indent levels/blank lines/Mac browsers." Dpbsmith 21:32, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Wikipedia%7EVillage_pump_December_2003_archive_3_0d9d.html"